Modify glm::refract's behaviour #808
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…en full reflection happens #806
|
You are quite right my change didn't made much sense. Thanks for contributing! |
Groovounet
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 31, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Refer to issue #806.
No offence, I don't think the changes in 76580af is appropriate. Actually,
eta's absolute value can be greater than 1.When a bundle of light shoots from a denser medium (say, water whose refractive index equals 1.3325) to less dense medium (air, for instance), a full internal reflection is possible to happen.
In this case,
etais 1.3325 / 1 = 1.3325. If we constrictetainto the range from -1 to 1,glmwill never support this kind of phenomenon, which is quite significant in computer graphics.By the way, negative
etamay be redundant.